Snap folding kings

Just wanted to run a quick line check. 2-5, 600 effective, I cover. I have a neutral image, villain is a younger guy, seems very weak-tight. He rarely raises, and when he does he seems to check/check back like 60 percent of flops. He has not three-bet at all in the four or so hours we have played together. I raise from earlier position with pocket kings to 25 and it folds around to villain who makes it 125 to go from the button, the blinds fold and its back to me. Based on his sizing, and how tight he was (as I said, his three-betting percentage for our first four hours playing together was zero) I think the only play is to call. If his 3-bet range is QQ+ and he is tight, I just don't see much point in 4-betting here as I am potentially putting myself in a way-ahead way behind situation. Folding is obviously too weak, absent some crazy soul read. So I flat, and the flop comes out AQ, rag, rainbow I believe. I check, he bets like 125 and I snap fold. The logic of this fold is, of course, I am now behind his entire range (except KK which I block), as he has either paired his Ace or has a set (either aces of queens). I figure if he has like JJ and is playing crazy then he wins. Obviously, these assumptions about his range are only accurate against a tight three-bettor. Thoughts?

Calling is the only thing you _can't_ do preflop. Either move-in or fold.

When you call, what are you going to do on a 972 flop? If you aren't thinking "I'm setting the trap for this guy", I can't think of any flop (that doesn't have a King on it) where you have a straightforward, logical line of play after you only call the flop.

I mean, on a raged flop, I am likely to take a check, bet, bet, line (assuming he checks the flop). If it comes out ragged and he bets, I am likely to call once or twice, figuring he might be doing that with AK or value owning himself with Queens. If he bets three streets on a low run out, I probably check fold the river because I don't think a player at this level (with this profile) is going to take that with anything but pocket aces.

97237, why wouldn't he bet QQ or JJ into a caller? Seems to me you are trying to make a simple hand super-complicated... and, the more passively you would play, the more you give him credit for a monster.

The one thing you can't do here is give AK a free flop. You already know everything you need to know about this player before the flop. It's not like the flop/turn/river are going to educate you more about him than you already know.

This is how I translate what you wrote: "I hope it comes an ace so I can fold."

There is a 150 pot out there and you have 575. Move in. If you say he will lay down everything other than AA, then move in on him every time you play with him regardless of your hand. However, he doesn't sound like he plays that pitifully, so you are going to get called by AKs, QQ, JJ and everything else more often than you will be called by AA. If he has 77 or some other hand you would never put him on or never call your raise with, fine, take the $150.

(And if you think he has AA the big majority of the time, then you definitely should just fold.)

Don't make poker complicated, and especially don't make poker complicated against the type of player that it is _easiest_ to play against.

Why wouldn't he bet into me with QQ or JJ on a low board? Because he is weak tight, that's why. Same reason he had a flop check-back rate as the preflop aggressor of like 60 percent. If I moved in on him every time he three-bet I would have moved in on him once.

If you are translating what I said as I hope an ace comes out so I can fold then I must have done a bad job explaining it. I am not flating to learn more about the player, I am flating to learn more about his range. This isn't about making the game complicated, it's about trying to take the optimal line against a guy with a threebet percentage of 2 percent. If my range on him is right, it's either a fold or a call, never a raise, because if he never does it with AK then you are crushed by basically half the range (AA) and crushing part of it (QQ) and flipping with KK (though chopping 99 percent of the time) and you are getting called by AA and KK always, and QQ less than always, so the bet, when called, is always negative EV. If you think my range is wrong, fine, but there is no way that raising against that range isn't the worst possible play. There are merits to calling if you figure to play better post flop, and there are merits to folding. But I don't see the advantage of being agressive just for the sake of simplifying our decision making.

It's not simplifying decisionmaking. It's stopping you from making an extreme error.

If he has AK, calling is horrible as the only way he continues postflop is if he beats you with an ace, or the far more rare occurrence of the case king coming. What do you expect from such a weaktight player if the flop comes 972?

If he has AA, calling is horrible for obvious reasons.

If he has QQ calling is horrible because you have a dominating edge over him now, when you should get all his chips in. If the flop is A or K, you get nothing more.

If he has KK, minor point, but you want to raise and hope he folds 1% or more of the time.

I can't imagine how you think going allin is negative EV. That is almost impossible -- and if it is true, then you should fold for sure because he has AA the majority of the time. The only question is: is there a _better_ line than one that wins the $150 against every other hand?

It comes down to this: if he has Aces more than 50% of the time, fold. If he has KK,QQ,JJ,AKs,AKo,AQs,plus everything else more than 50% of the time, move in.

This guy has not contrived an infallible weaktight way to play. I've played against players where if they raise I would fold KK without a thought, but I can't imagine any person's play where I would call and then... what? Hope to flop a king?

Calling is extremely negative EV, not just because you are throwing away the $100, it sounds like you would fold a winner _often_ on a ragged board simply because he bets a no-brainer bet.

If because you have moved up you aren't comfortable betting the money involved, fold for sure. If you think he has AA more than 50% of the time he raises like this, fold for sure. If you want to play EV+ poker against a weaktight player, move allin and take $150 or 600 from him far more often than he takes 600 from you.

If having (KK,QQ,JJ,AKs,AKo,AQs,plus everything else) is 3 times+ more likely than him having AA, move in. If not, fold.

I played a similar hand recently. It was a 1/2 game about $300 eff. There was a super nitty OMC 2 seats to my left. He had taken the same line twice where he 3! huge preflop, then immediately moved all in on the flop. Both times he had aces. It was one of those days for me where I was completely card dead, hadn't picked up a hand better than nines in 8 hours. So I was feeling somewhat frustrated, and it effected my play in the hand. I picked up KK UTG, raised to $12, guy in between calls, OMC makes it $80. I knew it should be a fold or shove, really probably snap fold, but I just called with some of the same logic you are using. Flop came Q high, I checked, he shoved, I mucked. He showed his aces. Preflop my faulty thinking was that his range was queens + and he would fold anything but aces if I shoved. On the flop I obviously don't beat any of that range so I have to fold. In reality though if I had thought a little more clearly, his range was probably aces only and I should have snap folded preflop, because my kings are just a setmining hand.

Like you said, my exact thought was that folding kings pre is obviously too weak, but in reality that isn't true in live poker. The goal is to exploit our opponents mistakes, and if their mistake is having such a tight 3! range that it's +EV for us to fold every hand except aces, then we need to exploit that and not make a bad call just because we can't bring ourselves to make such a "weak" fold.

Why wouldn't he bet into me with QQ or JJ on a low board? Because he is weak tight, that's why. Same reason he had a flop check-back rate as the preflop aggressor of like 60 percent. If I moved in on him every time he three-bet I would have moved in on him once.

If you are translating what I said as I hope an ace comes out so I can fold then I must have done a bad job explaining it. I am not flating to learn more about the player, I am flating to learn more about his range. This isn't about making the game complicated, it's about trying to take the optimal line against a guy with a threebet percentage of 2 percent. If my range on him is right, it's either a fold or a call, never a raise, because if he never does it with AK then you are crushed by basically half the range (AA) and crushing part of it (QQ) and flipping with KK (though chopping 99 percent of the time) and you are getting called by AA and KK always, and QQ less than always, so the bet, when called, is always negative EV. If you think my range is wrong, fine, but there is no way that raising against that range isn't the worst possible play. There are merits to calling if you figure to play better post flop, and there are merits to folding. But I don't see the advantage of being agressive just for the sake of simplifying our decision making.

I agree with everything you said. just feel that people will call you lighter then just AK+,QQ+ a lot of times. hell I just folded AA on a K79 flop to a single raise, granted it was a call/shove line so a bit aggressive too.

Yeah, against most villains I certainly agree. I just thought this guy was super weak tight. Against a standard villain I am almost certainly putting in a small 4-bet. I think there are merits to making it 250-275 and folding to a five bet, and continuing with a betting lead on most ace free flops.

@nopair, I provided a detailed analysis of why I thought shoving was negative EV. Obviously if his three-bet range is AQ/JJ plus, then its positive EV to shove. It doesn't follow that shoving is the ideal line, that would depend on what his four-bet calling range is like. But in any event, I think we are just disagreeing about his likely range.

I already said what I expected him to do with AK on a ragged flop, namely check back or one time it. Essentially the same thing with QQ. I don't think he has JJ in his range.

Also, shoving here is quite a gross-over bet. I would be betting 600 into. 150 pot. I see merits to clicking back s four bet to like 250, but I just cannot see this guy calling 600 with queens or AK, or 3-betting with those hands much. So why am I shoving if I am never, or rarely, good when called? Am I really raising for equity protection against AK? The odds of an ace pealing off are like 20 percent. So what's the extreme error I am avoiding, getting bet off the better hand by queens? A weak tight guy isn't going to shove his whole stack in with Queens by taking a bet, bet, bet line. That's what a good player would do, and most players aren't good.

In closing I would just say I am not contending he will play perfectly, I am saying the best way exploit a player who is weak is to let him reveal the strength of his hand post flop (because he won't fold Queens on a ragged board, but he won't bet all theee streets either) rather than play back at him preflop so he can fold out his weak hands and only continue with hus monsters.

But that isn't really the point. The way to play this hand badly is to lose another $200-400 and _then_ decide he has AA. That is spewing. If you lose 250 by calling the 100 raise, then calling 150 on a 972 flop, then folding the 3 turn when he moves in, how are you going to make up that extra $250 when you had the chance to have a EV- $25 loss every time this comes up (once every year when you have KK and weaktight raises like this)?

Against weaktight players where you hold a non-drawing hand, either shove them against the wall by playing a better hand for a big bet or fold. Don't play into their hands by reacting to whatever betting sizes _they_ choose and then not see the showdown.

I don't see any logical reason to always play a big hand fast and hard against a weak tight player. You are assuming, I guess, that he will take a bet, bet, bet line with Jacks/Queens. Does that seem like the play of a weak tight guy? You just seem to be assuming, without offering any reasoned explanation, that my expectation regarding his play with non-aces is wrong, but you aren't saying why. If you think a weak tight player is going to 3-bet to 125 and bet, bet with queens or jacks on a ragged runout, then I think we disagree about what a weak tight player is. Your line of raising seems like a much better one to take against a person who won't make a bunch of post-flop mistakes. But that didn't seem to be this villain. I mean, to spin your hypo around, how am I going to make up for the negative EV of 4-betting all against a guy whose calling range is likely to be half of his queens, all his aces and all his kings? My equity against that range is crap. I don't see the merits to your line as compared to mine, it just seems like aggression for its own sake. But if I am missing dom let me know, i would like to know.

"how am I going to make up for the negative EV of 4-betting all against a guy whose calling range is likely to be half of his queens, all his aces and all his kings"

You should turn a large profit! You get 150 every time he folds the queens, and 150 from every JJ and AK and everything else.

Ten times he gets Kings are an EV push if he always calls.
Ten times he gets Aces, you invest an additional 575 and return about 240, so net -3350.
The queens five times he folds you win 150, total 750... other five times you invest an additional 575 and return 960, so +385x5=1925, so queens are 750+1925=2675 for you.
So when he has AA/KK/QQ, your bottom line is -675.

But ten instances of JJ that he folds earn you +1500.
AK is three times more likely than a pocket pair so that is 30 times he folds AK, for a profit of +4500.
All the other TT or AQs that he folds is further profit that we'll ignore.

If his raising range is AA/KK/QQ/JJ/AK, and his calling of a move-in is as you said, your EV for moving in then is over +$75.
If we eliminate AK, but keep JJ in his range, then your EV is +$20

But again, if you are saying he only raises with AA, KK or QQ, then fold, and your EV is -$25.

Well, okay so it is a range disagreement then. Because if his range is QQ plus the shove isn't profitable, according to your own numbers. But what you just proved is only that a shove isn't profitabile against that range, not a point I would have ever disputed. Nor would I dispute that if his range is wider a push is profitable. But it simply doesn't follow from that that we should four-bet or fold, because none of what you just said speaks to the profitability, or not, of calling. If you assume that it will be possible to fold against aces at some point, but stack queens, then it is entirely possible that calling is the best play. Another way to put it is this, do you ever flat with aces? Shoving with aces preflop is always plus EV, but that doesn't mean it's always the best play. At least that's the way I think about it.

" Shoving with aces preflop is always plus EV, but that doesn't mean it's always the best play."

Right, while shoving is EV+ against the broader range, that doesn't mean it is the best move against a particular player. But we have a weaktight player here, not a spewy liveone.

"If you assume that it will be possible to fold against aces at some point, but stack queens, then it is entirely possible that calling is the best play."

I assume you will lose a lot taking this line. I think it is entirely fanciful to think that you will be able to tell the difference on most boards... and I would assume you would end up folding to his KK sometimes also. (Look at the hand you played. If he had KK here, you are so far behind in EV that you'll never catch up.)

If we are sure he has AA/KK/QQ, or you play the passive/reactive/let-me-guess way you are suggesting, you will get creamed on EV. You obviously think you can drastically outplay him... even though he has position.

Just look at it that way. Half the time he has AA; half the time he has QQ. _All_ of the time he has position.

Forget about all the big stacks involved here. If AA/KK/QQ is his universe and he has position, take the $25 loss and move on... especially if there is _any_ chance he is actually more likely to only play AA/KK like this, and not QQ. If that is true, your EV is through the floor and it is a _huge_ mistake to continue.

I think we just have a different understanding of what a weak tight player is. It's not absurd to assume you will make better post flop decisions, even out of position, against a bad player. That's just a baseless assumption. Also, no way in a million years does a weak tight player bet out on that flop with kings. He is too scared.

If weaktight bets Kings on that flop even one out of 1000 times, it takes from your EV. That's the negative of position and the negative of being reactive to his reputation rather than being proactive.

Even bad players know how to play AA, but I wouldn't characterize weaktight players as bad... when they hold AA/KK/QQ. Weak tight players are bad when they hold A♠T♠ or 99.

The best time to target weaktight players is every hand when they don't raise, not the once in a blue moon when they do.